[IPAC-List] Use of integrity assessments in public sector

[Winfred Arthur, Jr.]

Harry, concur that measures of integrity and conscientiousness are not 
the same thing.  however, there is a reasonable degree of relationship 
between them.  i have pasted below text from a paper that i have 
in-press that speaks to this issue and may be informative to the 
discussion?  so, yes are you correct in that integrity is not 
conscientiousness, but it does have elements of it . . . maybe further 
confusing things instead of making them clearer?  :)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The integrity testing literature suggests that agreeableness, 
conscientiousness, and emotional stability are moderately to strongly 
related to integrity (Berry et al., 2007; Wanek, Sackett, & Ones, 
2003).  For instance, Ones (1993) reports mean rs of .26, .28, and .22 
for agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, 
respectively; a pattern of results that is consonant with Ones, 
Viswesvaran, and Schmidt's (1993) view that integrity is primarily 
comprised of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and to a lesser extent, 
emotional stability.  Thus, integrity has an established nomological 
network with these personality traits."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 1/7/2014 2:41 PM, Harry Brull (OCE) wrote:

>

> I'm not sure my posts are getting through (new company ownership = new 

> e-mail addrerss)

>

> But I think the discussion needs some refreaming.

>

> Honesty/integrity tests and measures of conscientiousness are not the 

> same thing.

>

> The latter does not ask people if they have ever lied/cheated/stolen

>

> It attempts to identify people who possess higher levels of work 

> ethic/rule following/ carefulness/achievement orientation

>

> We typically combine it with a scale measuring customer orientation 

> (helpfulness/service orientation/ concern for otheras)

>

> The result, in over 200 validity studies selects employees with higher 

> levels of conscuentiss work behavior and pro-social behavior and a 

> lower level of a wide range of maladaptive behaviors (including 

> absenteeism/theft/accidents/workers' comp claims, etc.)

>

> As for the fear of litigation, we have dministered the instrument (the 

> Employment Inventory) to over 30 million job applicants (both private 

> and public sector) with less than a handful of challenges -- none 

> successful.

>

> What are we afraid of???????

>

> The cost of litigation has to be far, far less than the value added by 

> hard-working, careful, honest, rule-abiding employees\

>

> Harry Brull

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> *Harry Brull, Senior Vice President*

>

> *PDI Ninth House, a Korn/Ferry Company*

>

> 8157 Buck Run

>

> Salida, CO 81201

>

> USA

>

> 1.612.414.8998 direct

>

> harry.brull at pdinh.com__

>

> *www.pdinh.com <http://www.pdinh.com/>*

>

> **

>

> **

>

> <http://www.pdinh.com/>

>

> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/pdi?trk=fc_badge%22%3e%3cimg><http://twitter.com/><http://www.facebook.com/PDINinthHouse><http://www.weibo.com/pdininthhouse><http://www.youtube.com/user/PDINinthHouse>

>

> *From:*ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org 

> [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] *On Behalf Of *Patrick McCoy

> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:34 AM

> *To:* ipac-list at ipacweb.org; Mark Hammer

> *Subject:* Re: [IPAC-List] Use of integrity assessments in public sector

>

> Interesting discussion.

>

> I think most of us would agree that conscientiousness, honesty, 

> integrity, and a host of similar constructs are clearly important in 

> most employment contexts, whether in the private or public sector.

>

> For me, the question is whether the best we can do is to rely on 

> self-report type tools that rely on the persons's integrity, 

> honesty,etc. People who have never cheated at something, at some time, 

> are rather rare in my humble opinion.  Same goes for people who have 

> never lied,etc.

>

> Should an honest respondent be penalized for indicating on an 

> instrument they cheated at some point in time, perhaps in their 

> childhood? If the answer is no, one probably needs to be careful that 

> the assessment tool to be used does not, in fact, penalize such an 

> individual.  If a forced-choice approach is used to help reduce the 

> likelihood that the respondent will just pick the desirable option, I 

> guess we must ask ourselves does the approach really work.  It may 

> not, especially in contexts where the approach may need to be 

> disclosed in a recourse situation.

>

> Are there other approaches to assessing the construct(s) that might 

> be expected, a priori, to work better?

>

> Hope you had a great holiday season!

>

> Pat McCoy

>

> in Ottawa, Canada

>

> >>> "Mark Hammer" <Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca 

> <mailto:Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca>> 2014/01/05 5:02 PM >>>

> As one can see below, Reid's original question was not with respect to 

> the validity of integrity tests */in general/* - I think we can all 

> envision contexts where they would be the perfect supplement to other 

> validtests, given the nature of the position - but the specific use of 

> such tests in the public sector.

>

> "Public sector" includes two general uses: for external recruitment 

> _into_ the PS, and for competitions/promotions _within_ the PS.  As I 

> commented earlier, without articulating that I was thinking in terms 

> of internal competitions, any tests used, no matter what their 

> validity might be, will often have results available publicly, whether 

> posted automatically (to show who made the short list), or upon 

> request (e.g., an appeal that inquires into "why I didn't make the cut 

> and those guys did").  And under those conditions, Harry's "smoove 

> move" of using a term/construct that does not brand a person quite so 

> negatively, is on the money, as far as I'm concerned.  Of course, once 

> one is within any public-sector organization, the assumption is that 

> you pass muster, with respect to integrity, if you are applying for a 

> promotion or other position, and have not been in trouble as of yet; 

> your "good egg" credit subs for a test.

>

> I don't know about everybody else's public sector context, but in ours 

> there is a security check, and working is contingent on obtaining that 

> security clearance.  If you come from outside, they do a check, and if 

> you're coming from inside and already have that security level, you 

> get credit for that.  That clearance may be relatively basic for a 

> great many positions, but it is there.  What sort of distinguishes 

> private sector and public sector employers is that many private-sector 

> employers may have the resources to spring for integrity testing, but 

> not have either the resources or legal authority to engage in the sort 

> of thorough security check that public-sector employers can.  My 

> employers can have the RCMP run a check on you.  I don't know what 

> Krogers or Target has the legal clout to do.

>

> So, for me, the question that arises is how much any integrity testing 

> is largely reduncant with the one-two-punch of a security check and a 

> structured reference check.  I will grant you that use of even /both/ 

> of these is not necessarily exactly the same as either testing for 

> integrity or conscientiousness.  But I suspect that, as Reid notes, 

> unless we are looking specifically at public safety officers, or any 

> other postions of trust where a security check is considered to not 

> capture the entire construct space of interest, you won't see 

> integrity tests used all that often.

>

> Of course, a member of the public would likely look at the nature of 

> employment in each sector - "at will" in the private, and ultra-secure 

> in the public - and scrunch their face up, muttering "Wait, you're 

> going to hire him/her for conceivably *30 years,* and you're not even 

> going to test for that, yet that /other/ employer is going to put a 

> checkout cashier through those hoops, even though they could fire them 

> at a moment's notice?".  That individual is looking at it from the 

> low/high stakes angle, where at-will employment implies the 

> ethical/integrity bar can be a little lower, since mistakes can be 

> corrected by termination.

>

> Mark

>

> >>> Reid Klion 01/02/14 5:44 PM >>>

>

> Happy 2014 to all!

>

> I am curious about the group?s thoughts about a question that was 

> recently posed by a colleague regarding the use of integrity tests in 

> the public sector. Integrity tests are used fairly broadly in the 

> private sector for individuals applying for ?positions of trust.? 

> However, neither of us were aware of their usage in the public sector 

> (setting aside the use of psychological assessments for the selection 

> of public safety officers which uses a different set of assessments 

> much broader in scope ).  Anyone have any thoughts or anecdata? Thanks-

>

> Reid

>

>

>

>

> >

> This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may 

> contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt 

> from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying 

> or re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or 

> not authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this 

> e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete 

> the message and any copies.

> >

> Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en 

> titre et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou 

> soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute 

> divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est 

> interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes 

> pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu 

> par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et 

> supprimer le courriel et les copies.

>

> >

> This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may 

> contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt 

> from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying 

> or re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or 

> not authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this 

> e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete 

> the message and any copies.

> >

> Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en 

> titre et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou 

> soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute 

> divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est 

> interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes 

> pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu 

> par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et 

> supprimer le courriel et les copies.

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140107/21602a82/attachment.htm